I kinda lost my burning for an UW with the 16-35 f/4L. It's just so darn good for the price.

That good? Worth upgrading from 1740?

The 16-35/f4L makes the 17-40 look like the kind of lens you get with those camera plus lens plus film things. Yes, the 17-40 really is that bad and if you didn't realise it, get the 16-35 (or just for a day) and you'll soon see why.

On the one hand, I can see Canon aiming a stop faster to compete with the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8. On the other hand, with the complaints about the Nikon's and the TS-E 17mm's bulbous front elements and need for special filters, I can see Canon giving up an f-stop to get a flat front element, if possible.

Seriously, 11mm rectilinear on full-frame, has that even been done before in a prime? And we're talking about a zoom? At f/2.8?

Have seen how BIG the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 is?

I actually think $2800 would be a steal for something so absurdly wide and fast.

I agree with most on here in that I do not see the point of f/2.8 on something this wide. I guess you could argue astro-landscape photography but, at 11mm, even f/4 would be very manageable on modern full-frame image sensors.

I hope I'm completely wrong, but this lens just seems physically impossible to make.

Seriously, 11mm rectilinear on full-frame, has that even been done before in a prime? And we're talking about a zoom? At f/2.8?

Have seen how BIG the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 is?

I actually think $2800 would be a steal for something so absurdly wide and fast.

I agree with most on here in that I do not see the point of f/2.8 on something this wide. I guess you could argue astro-landscape photography but, at 11mm, even f/4 would be very manageable on modern full-frame image sensors.

I hope I'm completely wrong, but this lens just seems physically impossible to make.

I think 12-24 f/4 would be a great compromise to keep weight and cost down.

Seriously, 11mm rectilinear on full-frame, has that even been done before in a prime? And we're talking about a zoom? At f/2.8?

Have seen how BIG the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 is?

I actually think $2800 would be a steal for something so absurdly wide and fast.

I agree with most on here in that I do not see the point of f/2.8 on something this wide. I guess you could argue astro-landscape photography but, at 11mm, even f/4 would be very manageable on modern full-frame image sensors.

I hope I'm completely wrong, but this lens just seems physically impossible to make.

Just remember:According to the rumor rating page on this site:CR1=The source is probably a 4 legged animal of some kind.I did not write that!!! CR did...LOL!

canon rumors FORUM

Well EF 11-24 f/2.8L – it is kinda extreme numbers. So extreme, that I think it is 99.9% inaccurate info.Numbers a can believe:1) EF 14-24 f/2.8L – a competitor for Nikon lens.2) EF 11-24 f/4L – something totally new.3) EF-S 11-24 f/2.8 – fast lens for APS-C (non L, of course).If previously posted patent info (http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/01/patent-canon-11-24mm-f4-lens/) is correct – the second variant is the most feasible.

Though, it is still possible that 11-24 f/2.8 are the correct numbers. Canon has some extraordinary lenses in its portfolio (e.g. 1200mm f/5.6 or 50mm f/1.0). But all are abandoned. Their price was as extreme as their specs are. And I believe the users niche was very narrow. So I don't think canon will make another one. It's just not profitably.

And if it is EF 11-24 f/4L, how popular it will be? (just interesting) I use Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 on APS-C for WA (17,6-25,6mm FF equivalent) and I very rarely wish to be able to go lower than 11mm (although it happened several times) but I often wish to have more on the long end. So, for my use, the 16-35mm range on FF gonna be almost perfect. "My use" is all-around photographing during travels (landscapes, towns, etc) and some indoor usage. What scenarios can be where non-fisheye 11mm on FF would be necessary? Only asto-photo?

I too am skeptical about a zoom as wide as 11mm. I hope they don't sacrifice too much IQ for it.

My ideal UWA is a 14-30mm f/2.8. I'd gladly give up 5mm on the long end for 2mm on the wide in regards to the current 16-35mm. And despite the number of people here who don't think f/2.8 is necessary, it comes in very hand for wedding receptions and night photography.

I doubt that it will have IS..it would be as big as a large cow!!!! LOL!

So how much bigger are the IS versions of the 70-200s over their non-IS counterparts? This idea that adding IS to a lens is going to make it significantly bigger is just pure myth, like the Canon EOS 3D.

I doubt that it will have IS..it would be as big as a large cow!!!! LOL!

So how much bigger are the IS versions of the 70-200s over their non-IS counterparts? This idea that adding IS to a lens is going to make it significantly bigger is just pure myth, like the Canon EOS 3D.

there's only so much room - this will already float in at around 16 elements or more. adding IS, adds to that, as well there has to be room for those elements in the optical / light path and lens body, not to mention the increased complexity for the optics to main performance.

I kinda lost my burning for an UW with the 16-35 f/4L. It's just so darn good for the price.

That good? Worth upgrading from 1740?

The 16-35/f4L makes the 17-40 look like the kind of lens you get with those camera plus lens plus film things. Yes, the 17-40 really is that bad and if you didn't realise it, get the 16-35 (or just for a day) and you'll soon see why.

Really? The 16-35 is certainly the better lens, but you might be exaggerating just a tad.

there's only so much room - this will already float in at around 16 elements or more. adding IS, adds to that, as well there has to be room for those elements in the optical / light path and lens body, not to mention the increased complexity for the optics to main performance.

Looking at the designs for the Nikon 14-24/2.8, Canon 16-35/2.8, and the Sigma 12-24mm lenses, there does seem to be a bit of open space, beyond what's required for the zoom mechanism. Whether it's feasible from an optical standpoint, and how representative those designs (which are either longer or slower) would be of a hypothetical 11-24mm lens, are unknown.